The Antiquities of Orissa v2.c17.s1.173

v2.c17.s1.173

Mr. Fergusson, as above stated, takes it to have been a *caitya*. The principal relics to be seen in Puri are, however, the three mystic monograms, now represented by the three images of Jagannātha, Balarāma, and Subhadrâ, and the wheel of law, now called Sudarśanacakra²⁵. These were the great objects of veneration, and for their location a Vihāra Hall would be the most appropriate. Such a hall was, I believe, the principal place of worship in the early days of Buddhism. It was built on high ground to give it a commanding position, and had at its further end the three monogramatic emblems on a high throne with the wheel on one side. Possibly there was likewise a *caitya*, but of this there is no indication. In many Buddhist places of worship, the wheel was the only emblem preserved, and we have abundant proofs of it in bas-reliefs at Bhilsā, Barāhat and Buddha Gayā, and also in some of the Vihāra caves²⁶, and it was not necessary to have a *caitya* likewise. Even if the mound be admitted to be the remains of a *caitya*, still the importance attributed to the emblems would show that they and the hall in which they were preserved were of greater importance than the tumulus. The @H [ 109 ] faithful came to the hall, prostrated themselves before the sacred emblems, and made their simple offerings; and when Yayāti took possession of the place, he allowed this form of worship to continue, but changed the names of the emblems, and appointed priests to perform *pūjā* with Hindu *mantras*, so that gradually the ritual changed, until it became what we see it now. Adverting to Yayāti’s revival, Stirling, quoting the authority of the *Palm Leaf Records*, says: ‘The formation of new image being considered an indispensible preliminary, the priests proceeded into the woods to look for a proper *dāru* or piece of timber, and having found one with all the requisite qualities indicated by the Śāstras, they brought it to the Rājā, who, filled with pious zeal, clothed both it and the old images in rich robes, and conducted them in great state to Puri. A new temple was then erected on the site of the old one, which was found to be much dilapidated and overwhelmed with sand. The four images were afterwards duly prepared and set up on their *siṁhāsana* or throne with much pomp and solemnity on the 5th of Kākard (when the sun was in the sign of Cancer—July), in the thirteenth year of the Rājā’s reign, amidst the shouts and rejoicings of the multitude. At the same time the necessary officers were appointed, feasts and festivals established, *sāsans* founded, and the whole country around Puri assigned as endowments for the maintenance of the temple. On this memorable occasion the Rājā received by general acclamation the title of second Indradyumna’²⁷. The *Temple Annals* for the time, however, are not contemporary records, and the erection of the temple and the making of new images described in them, appear to me to be fictitious. It is in the nature of mythology to rehabilitate old ideas, to change names, to give prominence to particular attributes, and to consign others into oblivion; and if my theory of appropriation be tenable, it would not be in keeping with new temples and new images. No one would attempt anything of the kind. To win the good will of the people, the Rājā would *repair* the old temple, and glorify the old images; and this I believe was what Yayāti did. His successors were too ardently devoted to the worship of Śiva²⁸ in their metropolis to think much of a distant town; or to add any eclat to the worship of Jagannātha, though, as already shown, they never neglected it. It is not at all likely, therefore, that the original Buddhist fane was disturbed for several centuries.